Latest Cases

Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection allowed the applicant, the son of the patient to become her deputy for property and affairs in place of the local authority on the basis that it was in the patient's best interests that her son manage her affairs. The court proposed to put in place safeguards in order to control any conflict of interest. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division granted applications by three Cayman companies against an individual, T, who was resident in England, for an order under s 426(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986, to render assistance to the Grand Court of the Cayman and its joint official liquidators, and a freezing order against T. 

Practice – Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The Chancery Division allowed the claimant company's application for the modification and continuation of a freezing order made against the first defendant, F, and the second defendant company, which he controlled. The court held that the order was permitted by the equitable jurisdiction. It was in the interests of justice that information obtained about alleged misconduct by F would be usable in disciplinary proceedings against him. 

European Union – Trade marks. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Infusion Brands, Inc., (Infusion) against a decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning an application by Infusion for registration of a figurative sign 'DUALSAW' as a Community trade mark. 

European Union – Trade marks. The Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the action brought by K-Swiss Inc., against a decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of a figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe. 

Town and country planning – Permission for development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, on an appeal against the dismissal of a challenge to the grant of planning permission for two wind turbines, held, among other things, that the present was one of those rare cases in which cross-examination had been necessary for justice both to be done and to be seen to be done. The judge had approached the question of cross-examination in a way that had been wrong in principle. The appeal would be allowed to the extent indicated and the case would be remitted to the Administrative Court. 

Proceeds of crime – Civil recovery of proceeds of unlawful conduct. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal of S against a civil recovery order made in respect of two properties. It held, among other things, that there was no proper basis for concluding that, on the facts, a recovery order in respect of the properties would violate S's rights under art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Such an order would not be disproportionate to the legislative aim and would not produce an unfair balance between the general interest of the community and the protection of S's fundamental rights or cast on her an excessive burden. 

Minor – Removal outside jurisdiction. The Family Division refused the mother's application to vary an order made under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction returning her child to Holland without her, by extending the time of return in order for the mother to travel with the child. 

European Union – Public procurement. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the application by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (EDL) and another related company for annulment of the decision of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy to reject EDL's tender and to award a contract for the provision of IT services and other related services to three other tenderers. The General Court decided that: (i) the mere fact that the final decision had been adopted after the relevant validity period had ended could not render that award decision unlawful; and (ii) the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the reasons for the award decision were inadequate. 

Marriage – Forced marriage. The Family Division, in an application by the local authority initially under a Forced Marriage Protection Order under pt 4 A of the Family Law Act 1996, but eventually in the inherent jurisdiction of the court held in respect of RS, that he did not have capacity to consent to marriage or sexual relations and the court had to exercise its discretion to decide whether to declare his marriage in Pakistan invalid.